I don't have any sources, but the "general knowledge" on the subject suggests that children are abused most often by people close to them, and that step parents are more likely to harbour negative/abusive thoughts towards step children than biological parents do.

I don't have any other explanation for how I was treated by CAS and the police. I was a "good suspect" because I was involved with the children, I was a male, and I was not their parent. 1 + 1 + 1 = 666 in their eyes apparently.

They questioned everything, even "why" was I helping with laundry, or "how" I would wash my son in the bath tub.

I agree, in fact step parents can be BETTER parents than bio-parents. However, statistically speaking this may not be the case. I am sure there are great step parents.

I agree, what I am wondering is - Does the increased risk of something itself get considered....

I agree probably FAR more. But if 80% were not abusive and 20% were then I wonder?

I do have some issues, all imposed on me by others - not everything is against me.

PErhaps, the possibility exists - are you a step-parent by any chance?

In fact, I'm not a step parent. My ex will be soon, and clearly by extention someone will be a step parent to my kids.

And I think you have to define abuse. Those fuzzy stats may or may not include verbal or emotional abuse, physical abuse or sexual abuse. I don't make light of abuse, I understand it exists, but I also know that stats are often misstated.

And I think you have to define abuse. Those fuzzy stats may or may not include verbal or emotional abuse, physical abuse or sexual abuse. I don't make light of abuse, I understand it exists, but I also know that stats are often misstated.

[13] Allegations of abuse may be a symptom of the failure of a relationship. Blame is an inherent part of the allegation. Sometimes it is wholly warranted; other times it is not. When parties are not communicating, any slight or criticism is magnified. There is a tendency to minimize the other spouse’s good qualities and maximize the bad. Warring spouses are rarely in a position to step back and evaluate the other’s behaviour with objective eyes. Nor are they able to critically assess their own behaviour...

pg 96Children are at far greater risk of abuse from step-parents than from natural parents.The Christchurch Health and Development Study has collected data from a birth cohortof over 1200 youngsters since 1977. A study of 1019 members of this cohort when theywere aged 18 year-olds found an overall prevalence rate of child sexual abuse of 10.4%(n = 132).31 Sexual abuse included incidents that were not identified as abusive bythose interviewed and ranged in severity from intercourse down to leering andsuggestive comments. Only 2 (1.5%) of those cases involved natural parents asperpetrators but 22.5% of accused offenders were step-parents. A number of otherstudies also have indicated that step-fathers are far more likely to engage in serioussexual abuse with their step-daughters than natural fathers. 32,33,34 For example,Finkelhor found that “a step-father was five times more likely to sexually victimise adaughter than was a natural father”.Biological fathers who form strong early attachments with their children and who areactively involved in their children’s nurturing are far less likely to abuse them. Paternalsupport in the form of affection, promotion of independence, and positive modelling /fairness reduces the likelihood of abuse. Furthermore, a strong father / child bond actsas a mitigating effect, reducing the chance of children developing ongoing problemsshould they suffer maltreatment in the future.

---------------------

Remarriage is generally considered positive because of the financial aspect and it "makes the mother happy" but I THINK that is just an assumption and the net impact on the children is negative (just theorizing here).

Not sure how much I can rely upon information from "The Christchurch Health and Development Study" as how it is re-presented. Not sure what is going on in NZ but, these statistics (as presented above) are whack. 1200 is too small of a sample size to draw any sort of conclusion like the author of this book is trying to apply. I hate selective edits when people are citing "statistics".

Not sure if you are a student of mathematical statistics but, I can offer you my opinion: I suspect that none were applied to the example you have provided. Or if they were applied, they were possibly applied incorrectly or manipulated in the re-publication process to support the author of this book's "theory"...

One of my online nemisises from another forum used to ask the question; therefore what?

Even if we do take one study as accurate, and as a trained social scientist, I wouldn't do that, what would you suggest? Should no one remarry when there are kids involved? So you punish 90 % of the population (and I would suggest it is higher).

I would suggest that couples considering getting married after divorces who have children go slow and take great deliberate care in moving forward, not because of potential abuse, but because of other issues in blending families that are far more common than abuse.